Bug 1427649
Summary: | systemd presets request - sssd.service | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jakub Hrozek <jhrozek> |
Component: | fedora-release | Assignee: | Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh> |
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | dennis, jdisnard, kevin, mboddu, pbrobinson, sgallagh, zbyszek |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | fedora-release-26-0.5, fedora-release-27-0.1 | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2017-03-01 13:30:42 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Jakub Hrozek
2017-02-28 20:13:05 UTC
It doesn't support socket activation? How hard would it be to add? (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1) > It doesn't support socket activation? How hard would it be to add? Yes and no. SSSD is actually a set of deamons. There are 'responders' that are contacted when a client library (such as the nss_sss nsswitch module or the pam_sss PAM module) need to perform an action. Those can be socket activated since the last upstram version (1.15). But these 'responders' resolve data from 'providers' that actually talk to a remote server or mirror data from /etc/passwd or /etc/group. And the path between providers and responders is not ready for socket activation yet, but instead, the providers are started on sssd service startup..sorry. Hopefully it would be in the next version. btw you are right that it might make sense to ask for the sockets like sssd-nss or sssd-pam to be activated as well and I'd like them to, but at the moment, we still have two bugs that might hit our users: - https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/143 - https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/146 I'm quite confident we would fix both this week since there are patches pending and on review, but I would prefer to ask for those sockets to be activated (if an approval for those is needed?) once we merge those patches. (In reply to Jakub Hrozek from comment #2) > btw you are right that it might make sense to ask for the sockets like > sssd-nss or sssd-pam to be activated as well and I'd like them to, but at > the moment, we still have two bugs that might hit our users: > - https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/143 > - https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/146 > > I'm quite confident we would fix both this week since there are patches > pending and on review, but I would prefer to ask for those sockets to be > activated (if an approval for those is needed?) once we merge those patches. Yes, approval for any new preset is required. If they're ready before this BZ is completed, just add them here and I'll amend my PRs: * https://pagure.io/fedora-release/pull-request/77 (master) * https://pagure.io/fedora-release/pull-request/76 (F26) Merged upstream. (In reply to Jakub Hrozek from comment #2) [snip] Thanks for the detailed answer. > but I would prefer to ask for those sockets to be activated (if an approval for those is needed?) once we merge those patches. Sounds reasonable. (This kind of change is something that's certainly allowed before Beta, so it seems better to wait until upstream support is finalized.) |